A near-future prognosis for television: surprisingly strong, driven by more choice

Live TV viewing may be waning, but television consumption isn't dead.

Television remains at the center of American life, and whatever threats exist from outside the realm of the Great BoobTube, those threats (including the Internet) are not making huge dents in TV consumption patterns. In fact, technologies like the DVR and on-demand services appear to be gaining momentum, largely making up for declines in live TV consumption.

This is hardly a surprise. Television isn't dying—it's continuing to post strong viewership numbers (and we know that Nielsen and the like capture only a portion of the real audience). The data we have, however, makes it clear that audiences are changing the way they relate to TV. Companies that figure out the best way to service viewers' various demands—better content, served up when they want it, and viewable where they want it—will reap the profits.

According to Nielsen’s "Cross Platform Report - Q4 2011," the average American watches a little more than five hours of video each day, and 98 percent of that video viewing takes place on a television. Note the word average, and note that we are talking about Nielsenhere. These are approximations of reality, so the usual caveats apply. Even still, five hours of video viewing is tremendous. Besides "work" or "school," there is no other non-involuntary activity that humans devote themselves to so thoroughly on a daily basis in these United States.

A look at fourth quarter (only) consumption composition going back four years

Data source: Nielsen

What’s more, Nielsen’s TV data does not track computer usage, and thus does not count the time people spend watching video at their computers, even if their computers are connected to a television. Nielsen's "five hours" of video consumption is comprised of only the following possible sources: cable/satellite/antenna-based TV, video game consoles, DVR, DVD, Blu-ray, and VCR.

This intense amount of viewing time had actually been growing year-over-year for the past several years, until 2011 wrapped up and there was a perceptible dip. Nielsen says that it has detected a decline of 46 minutes per month (~1.5 mins/day) of traditional TV viewing per person, or 0.5 percent of personal viewing time. Where did it go? According to Nielsen, growth in timeshifted TV viewership made up for most of that decline. DVRs and on-demand offerings of non-movie content continue to grow year-over-year, an important point I'll bring up again. Nevertheless, Nielsen reported late last week that the number of households with a TV connected to cable, satellite, or antenna has declined for two years in a row, from 115.9 million in 2009, to 114.1 million last year.

Nielsen hasn't seen declines in connected households in over 20 years, so what does the company believe is causing this? The decline is reportedly caused by two factors: increased poverty brought on by the recession, and an increase in people foregoing television sources in favor of an all Internet-based experience.

Shocker: people want more control over TV

DVR adoption saw a year-over-year increase of 10 percent, resulting in 2011 estimates of 47 million devices in American homes. Video game console growth was only 3 percent, bringing those estimates to 51.2 million. In the span of a year, DVRs have gained ground on game consoles, reducing the gap from approximately 7 million households to just over 4 million. Will DVRs surpass video game consoles in 2013? It seems almost certain, particularly since the next-generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft are nowhere on the horizon.

Equally interesting, Nielsen has reported in the past that DVR users watch more TV than their non-DVR counterparts, and increasingly, they are adopting multiple DVRs for their homes. And when you look at homes with DVRs, video game consoles, and DVD players in them, guess which device gets used the most? DVRs. This is fascinating. As recently as 2008, DVD viewing averages were second only to live television, but now both video games and DVRs see more usage.

None of this is to say that television is not undergoing significant change. But when in television's relatively short history has it been possible to say that it hasn't been undergoing change? Let's not forget that TV did not emerge from a laboratory in the 1920s with 800 channels of high-definition glory and competing distribution schemes ranging from orbital satellites to fiber-optic cables to good old-fashioned bunny ears. Nevertheless, it just feels right to predict that traditional, live TV viewing will indeed decline significantly over time. But there is a very real sense in which tech pundits mistake their friends firing the cable guy for what's happening on a national level, and that's not justified by the numbers. Not yet.

Hardly a week goes by without someone predicting the death of cable, and that's because we're presently in the grips of a classic fairy-tale metastory that posits the empowered Internet user as throwing off the chains of "old media," which invariably includes newspapers, cable TV, the big networks, and others. But such stories have so far had to downplay real growth in cable subscriptions by predicting that younger people won't be signing up in the future, when it's their job to replace the current customers. But we don't know what today's youth will have the opportunity to turn down in 5, 10, or 20 years. And we should be doubly cautious to mistake one distribution medium for television itself.

In the meantime, the biggest contributor to the decline of live TV will be DVR and on-demand services that give viewers what they want, when they want it. It is also a safe bet that Internet services will also greatly erode viewership, but the major players are doing everything they can to blur the distinction between their traditional distribution business and new opportunities afforded by Internet-based services. It's hardly a mistake that some of the largest distributors of television content in the world also tend to be the largest providers of Internet service to the home.

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher

Makes sense. Anecdotally, I've been using on demand services much more these days. And since I always have been bad at keeping up with set TV schedules (I schedule my time how I like, thank you!) I use the DVR heavily to follow my favorite TV series. I can watch what I like whenever I want on a weekly basis, skip commercials (with the DVR, anyway), and not have to worry about missing a show or scheduling according to the TV schedule.

Data are plural even... (I caught that as well). On most 'Net sites I'd not even wince. But I suspect a large fraction of Ars' readers are academics or people who write technical papers.

As to the content, I suspect that cable subs haven't dropped much in part because the Comcasts and Time Warners of the world are supplying the broadband. I can't get internet as fast as what I have without cable video unless I pay more. Why would I pay more and NOT get my cable channels? If the trustbusters made all the broadband suppliers dumb pipes we'd have a LOT more programming choices and pay a lot less for them.

Personally I almost only watch DVR and netflix... with ever changing and conflicting schedules between what my wife and I watch and what our young kids watch, adult TV comes on after they go to bed (they don't need to see the cop shows my wife loves). Before that Netflix with Dora the Explorer have a decent hold on it, but it gets turned on and they run to a different room half the time or want to play outside instead after a few minutes...

To me these days live TV is good for finding new shows and being set up to DVR, and my DVR never seems to be empty anyway.

WTF? People on average watch 4.5 hours TV a day!? That's insane! I can't remember the last time I watched that much TV in one day. Where the hell do people get the time for all this? After I'm home from work and have dinner I got about 3-4 hours till I have to go to bed. How would I watch 5 hours?? Make it up on the weekend?

I really want to get rid of my cable TV as I only watch a handful of shows. The challenge is that I cant find a replacement that isn't a huge pain in the butt in terms of easily finding what I like to watch.

I too only watch television from my DVR and almost never live TV. This is mainly due to the fact that I don’t want to schedule my life around the weekly shows that I enjoy. That and the ability to pause for breaks and skip over commercials. I also find it interesting the little tricks that networks are starting to use to confuse those of us who don’t watch commercials by putting 20 second segments of show between commercials or even showing commercials with the characters from the show I’m watching. Bravo mainly does this.

On an unrelated note, this is my first post here and I’m excited to join to such an intelligent, honest, and polite community. I look forward to posting more.

I know they said caveats apply, so please tell me this is a gross exaggeration. I watch more TV than I like to admit, but it still averages out to less than 3 hours a day, and a big chunk of that is background for a primary activity like feeding my infant daughter.

I know they said caveats apply, so please tell me this is a gross exaggeration. I watch more TV than I like to admit, but it still averages out to less than 3 hours a day, and a big chunk of that is background for a primary activity like feeding my infant daughter.

Viedo includes movies on the DVD/Bluray player and video games: "Nielsen's "five hours" of video consumption is comprised of only the following possible sources: cable/satellite/antenna-based TV, video game consoles, DVR, DVD, Blu-ray, and VCR."

This. When my wife gets home the TV goes on. I'm fine with it off, but she was brought up in a household that had the TV on all the time -- when we were dating her parents would have 3 or 4 TV's on in the house all the time, even when no one is in the room.

I'm baffled not so much by the subscriber strength of cable (look at truck sales amid rising gas prices this decade).

I'm baffled that ad prices on cable have remained high. No one watches these ads to begin with, there is more technology to skip over these ads, and more channels available has meant more channel surfing. An online ad on, say, Hulu, should be worth more, but the market hasn't corrected. And so people pay for content with ads, while the online video ad market is undervalued.

There is a cable subscription downward trend ahead. The affluent middle class to support this programming just doesn't exist anymore. There are more growth in unemployment in the suburbs than the cities. The subscription rates are unsustainable.

Although the numbers presented - total hours of viewing - are interesting (and shockingly high), they aren't really the "bottom line". What the companies producing / distributing content need to know is how much revenue per hour they can achieve. While my family doesn't watch 5 hours per day, we probably do manage 2 hours. We either DVR or Netflix or DVD everything. This means no advertisements. Once it became obvious that Ads went from 10 minutes per hour in the 1960's (witness my original Star Trek episodes that are 50 minutes long), through the 15 minutes per hour in the 1990's (my TNG episodes are 45 minutes) to today's nearly 17 - 18 minutes. That certainly pushed us into the "fast forward all ads" mode with our TiVo.

It will be interesting to see how far media companies go with product placement and other changes to combat the fact that we don't watch their ads anymore.

I really want to get rid of my cable TV as I only watch a handful of shows. The challenge is that I cant find a replacement that isn't a huge pain in the butt in terms of easily finding what I like to watch.

It obviously depends on the shows you want being available, but I've been using Xbox with Kinect for all my TV needs since January. The ability to voice search quickly across multiple sources (Hulu, Netflix with subs, Epix, Vudu, & Zune for on-demand) is fantastic. Voice controls for pause, fast forward, etc are supported in all of these apps as well and I absolutely love not having to use a controller at all.

Hopefully as more and more licenses are grabbed by Hulu, Netflix, and others I will be able to be completely satisfied for all my needs. But for now, I save ~$70 a month by not paying for cable, offset by my $14 for Hulu and Netflix and occasionally on-demand.

"It is also a safe bet that Internet services will also greatly erode viewership"

If by internet services, you just mean a different distribution channel for television content, perhaps. But, a major change in the kind of content that people are interested in seems unlikely.

While I agree with your sentiment in general, and your guess as to the meaning, I find that I've actually started looking forward to an internet-only show for the first time. Battleground exists only for Hulu (plus? not sure), and I watch it each Tuesday when its available just as if it were any other TV show, though it doesn't exist for TV.

I like this, data as plural just sounds wrong to me, probably because I view data as a set (each piece is part of a whole )instead of a group of individuals.

I guess it's a matter of how it's used - like fish vs. fishes. Fish is singular and plural Fishes is also plural fish but means something different.

Datum is the singular form of data. A SET of data is singular. Any journal to which I used the phrase "the data indicates..." would summarily dismiss my paper. Then again, I'm not in the computer sciences so I won't comment on Aaron's contention above that data as singular is acceptable convention (there). It is absolutely NOT in fluid mechanics, heat transfer, combustion, propulsion, etc. Common misuse has not yet made data as singular standard universally.

I like this, data as plural just sounds wrong to me, probably because I view data as a set (each piece is part of a whole )instead of a group of individuals.

I guess it's a matter of how it's used - like fish vs. fishes. Fish is singular and plural Fishes is also plural fish but means something different.

Datum is the singular form of data. A SET of data is singular. Any journal to which I used the phrase "the data indicates..." would summarily dismiss my paper. Then again, I'm not in the computer sciences so I won't comment on Aaron's contention above that data as singular is acceptable convention (there). It is absolutely NOT in fluid mechanics, heat transfer, combustion, propulsion, etc. Common misuse has not yet made data as singular standard universally.

Data is by definition a set, which as you said is singular. This also goes against examples such as the alphabet has 26 letters, not the alphabet have 26 letters.

Voice controls for pause, fast forward, etc are supported in all of these apps as well and I absolutely love not having to use a controller at all.

It makes me crazy that it's NOT supported for DVD viewing though... And few things make you feel sillier than talking to your TV a couple times only realize it's not in a mode that supports voice controls.

That issue aside, it's true that the XBox's ability to search across several media apps for a particular show is AMAZING! Between Hulu and Netflix, I feel like I get a tremendous value for my dollar... as opposed to cable, where every month I felt so frustrated by how expensive it was. It's true that there are shows which I would love to watch, but I have to wait for their DVD release (effectively a 1-year delay in watching things like Clone Wars, Legend of Kora). But cable is an additional $600 PER YEAR! (I save ~$50/month * 12 months). For $600, I can find other entertainment in the mean time.

With the addition of the DVR (and a paid cable subscription), we watch much more TV than ever. And, I would say, we're more satisfied with TV than ever. Jump back and re-watch commercials that look interesting, share a "you gotta see this" moment with my spouse, etc..

Is TV going to die? The TV as a dedicated appliance seems to be heading in that direction. Often now either you use you TV as a glorified monitor or you have a newer TV that pulls content off the internet.

The content itself seems in little danger of going anywhere.

DrDenim wrote:

WTF? People on average watch 4.5 hours TV a day!? That's insane! I can't remember the last time I watched that much TV in one day. Where the hell do people get the time for all this? After I'm home from work and have dinner I got about 3-4 hours till I have to go to bed. How would I watch 5 hours?? Make it up on the weekend?

For starters, some are those that constantly complain they have "no time." Inevitably, the folks I hear that complain about their lack of time the most are also the ones who are dedicated TV watchers.

But then there are the folks who leave it on while they do something else, the kids who come home and the TV is their babysitter, elderly folks who don't really get out much, and other outliers who are bound to skew that average versus the typical single adult or young couple.

I like this, data as plural just sounds wrong to me, probably because I view data as a set (each piece is part of a whole )instead of a group of individuals.

I guess it's a matter of how it's used - like fish vs. fishes. Fish is singular and plural Fishes is also plural fish but means something different.

Datum is the singular form of data. A SET of data is singular. Any journal to which I used the phrase "the data indicates..." would summarily dismiss my paper. Then again, I'm not in the computer sciences so I won't comment on Aaron's contention above that data as singular is acceptable convention (there). It is absolutely NOT in fluid mechanics, heat transfer, combustion, propulsion, etc. Common misuse has not yet made data as singular standard universally.

I don't really believe the Nielsen numbers, either comparing one program to another, or as an effective survey of general behaviour. Their whole business is centred around making numbers look good so advertisers will buy spots. They're not exactly a disinterested scientific body, and I don't think Ars should be taking these numbers at face value.

I really want to get rid of my cable TV as I only watch a handful of shows. The challenge is that I cant find a replacement that isn't a huge pain in the butt in terms of easily finding what I like to watch.

That's why we got rid of cable. There were only a few shows we watched and it wasn't worth the money to keep watching them. We have changed what we watch, and most of it is old shows on Netflix.

We use a dedicated HTPC, so there is nothing on the internet we can't watch. The computer also has a tuner, so we will record over the air shows and watch them later skipping all the commercials. We watched the 2 hour finale of The Amazing Race last night, and it ran maybe 90 minutes after skipping all the commercials. Started watching it around 7:30 and finished it right around 9:00 when it was supposed to end. Oh, in reference to product placement, that is about the only way I see an advertising. Ford was doing that during The Amazing Race and Fringe. Fringe has also changed from Ford and is now peddling Nissan. They did several scenes prominently featuring the Leaf.

Only occasionally we will torrent a show. Usually because there is a recording conflict and it only gets one of the 2 shows we had scheduled. OTA is flaky sometimes and will have dropouts. If we get a bad recording, we will torrent those as well.

I don't really believe the Nielsen numbers, either comparing one program to another, or as an effective survey of general behaviour. Their whole business is centered around making numbers look good so advertisers will buy spots. They're not exactly a disinterested scientific body, and I don't think Ars should be taking these numbers at face value.

Quite. Nielson numbers are certainly going to be skewed towards live TV watchers. A lot of people have been skeptical of their numbers since long before the Internet era.

Also, treating different types of content as an average across all households seems a bit absurd. Certainly the DVR crowd is going to disfavor live TV heavily. Similarly, there are likely other types of household each with their own typical viewing patterns.

I just did a quick skim of the comments, but did anyone notice those are numbers for the 4Q of each year? Assuming that it based on a calendar year, that would put it right smack in the middle of the NFL season. So, yes those numbers do make a lot of sense.

If someone watches all three Sunday games and the Monday game with a very rough average of 3 hours per game, you are looking at 720 minutes of TV right there.

My TV viewing has gone down since the writers strike of 2007-2008. As the shows ran out of episodes that year, I deleted the season pass. I needed to make the effort to re-add the shows. I also got sick and tired of the games played by the networks in regards to scheduling.

Another rule that I adopted, thanks to Fox television, is to never watch a show in it's first season. There have been too many good shows that weren't given a chance by the networks (and yes, I am still sore about Firefly). I broke it this year with Alcatraz, and the show is being cancelled.